game_physics_3d

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only include a title, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this tool is read-only (query), nor does it mention side effects, performance implications, or coordinate system assumptions. The description lacks transparency about what happens during each action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short—only one phrase. While concise, it is under-specified and lacks structure, failing to explain the tool's behavior or usage patterns effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to interpret intersection results. Given the tool's complexity, this is a significant gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Ray end {x,y,z}'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it performs Area3D queries and intersection tests, which gives a general sense of purpose. However, it could be more specific about the supported actions (overlap, ray, etc.) and does not differentiate from similar tools like game_physics_2d or game_raycast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_raycast, game_navigation_3d, or game_physics_body. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for using the different actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.